Ban alcohol

No, he isn't. You didn't address my ideas at all, and just said that nothing can possibly work. That's not an argument, FYI.

No, I said no gun restrictions will work.

That is my position. I then provided an example of that position in recent historical fact. That we passed gun restrictions, and shootings have continued to increase. This is in direct opposition to your position.

This isn't a debate ploy. It is just debate.
 
Not really but....

Every day 28 people die in an alcohol-related car accident

  • In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.
  • 209 0 to 14 yr old were killed in 2015
  • The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $44 billion
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

So due to alcohol 10,000 people a year die. There Is zero benefit to alcohol.

That's just traffic accidents.



In 2017 there were 15,549 people killed by guns in the United States in 2017.

https://www.thetrace.org/rounds/gun-deaths-increase-2017/

We'll look at that those numbers..Those are pretty comparable. I don't understand why we're not all talking about banning alcohol. what's the difference?

Legit question
No.
 
No, I said no gun restrictions will work.

That is my position. I then provided an example of that position in recent historical fact. That we passed gun restrictions, and shootings have continued to increase. This is in direct opposition to your position.

This isn't a debate ploy. It is just debate.
Even if I accept what you say as fact, your argument is ridiculous.

One gun control measure didn't work, therefore no gun control measure can ever work.


Do you see how weak, and pathetic that argument is now?
 
Two thoughts:

1.

2.

the increases we are seeing -- in certain places or certain types of shootings -- in this overall downward trend may just because there are substantially more guns than there were thirty years ago.

1. I'm one that believes all crime rates have been in decline since 18 years after abortion was legalised.

2. I hate that we conflate mass shootings, and gun violence. Mass shootings have been completely random in geography. Funny enough, they tend to be white and male, that is the most common demographic trait.

Gun violence is largely a inner urban crime. It in my opinion is driven over profit motive for drug turf. This demographic is largely black young males.

They are two completely separate problems.
 



From your link:

But Obama administration officials distanced themselves from Mr. Comey at the time. They said they had seen no evidence to support the idea of a “Ferguson effect,” named after the 2014 shooting by a police officer of an unarmed black man in Ferguson, Mo., which sparked widespread protests.

Obama administration officials declined to comment on Wednesday about Mr. Comey’s latest remarks, which were sharper in tone than his previous statements. But some dissenters said he was needlessly stirring up an unproven and divisive notion.

“He ought to stick to what he knows,” James O. Pasco Jr., executive director of the National Fraternal Order of Police, said in a telephone interview. The organization has more than 330,000 members.

“He’s basically saying that police officers are afraid to do their jobs with absolutely no proof,” Mr. Pasco said.


...

Mr. Comey said that he could not fully explain the trend or the major differences from one city to the next.

“I don’t know what the answer is, but holy cow, do we have a problem,” he said.

“It’s a complicated, hard issue, but the stakes couldn’t be higher. A whole lot of people are dying,” he said.

He said that the spike in violent crime deserves more national attention from scholars, the media, and the public.

“Something is happening,” he said. “A whole lot more people are dying this year than last year, and last year than the year before and I don’t know why for sure.”

Asked about his past views on the “Ferguson effect” as a possible explanation, Mr. Comey said he rejected that particular term, but added that he continued to hear from police officials in private conversations that “lots and lots of police officers” are pulling back from aggressive confrontations with the public because of viral videos.

I appreciate you supplying that link, but Comey makes it pretty clear he's speculating without proof. And he's not even talking about gun violence.

Still, something to think about. I'd be interested in seeing follow-up on this. Has this idea been established as fact now that we have the benefit of hindsight?
 
Even if I accept what you say as fact, your argument is ridiculous.

One gun control measure didn't work, therefore no gun control measure can ever work.


Do you see how weak, and pathetic that argument is now?

But it wasn't just 1.

There was quite a few national gun laws passed, including the assualt rifle ban, where during the time it was in place, mass shootings continued to increase.

Then there is the uncountable state laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. If you think some gun restriction will work, surely you can point me to a state that passed gun legislation you support, and the corresponding decrease in mass shootings.
 
I can think of a common element they both share.

Yep, and 99% of heroine users, have smoked marijuana. Conclusion, weed leads to heroine use.

Ban weed, and we can stop the opioid crisis. This message brought to you by Phizer.
 
But it wasn't just 1.

There was quite a few national gun laws passed, including the assualt rifle ban, where during the time it was in place, mass shootings continued to increase.

Then there is the uncountable state laws that have been passed in the last 20 years. If you think some gun restriction will work, surely you can point me to a state that passed gun legislation you support, and the corresponding decrease in mass shootings.
There has never been any serious gun restrictions passed. Read my first post again. We haven't tried national bans on magazines over a certain size, or tracked purchases of guns and ammo. We haven't gotten full background checks for all gun purchases, and we haven't increased the standard for that.


We haven't really tried anything, so there is no example. Only examples from other nations.
 
There has never been any serious gun restrictions passed. Read my first post again. We haven't tried national bans on magazines over a certain size, or tracked purchases of guns and ammo. We haven't gotten full background checks for all gun purchases, and we haven't increased the standard for that.


We haven't really tried anything, so there is no example. Only examples from other nations.

That is non-sense. Every specific thing you named has been done on the state level.

You may argue that state restrictions are useless, because they just come across state borders, but the reality is that their is no evidence increased background checks reduce mass shootings or murder rates, and restrictions of magazine capacity suffer from the same failing an outright gun ban in the US would suffer from, that their is too much in circulation already for this to be effective.

Honestly man. Do you think there is no root cause to these mass shootings, because I really do think we do a disservice to solving this problem by letting the gun argument suck the oxygen out of the room every time one occurs.
 
That is non-sense. Every specific thing you named has been done on the state level.

You may argue that state restrictions are useless, because they just come across state borders, but the reality is that their is no evidence increased background checks reduce mass shootings or murder rates, and restrictions of magazine capacity suffer from the same failing an outright gun ban in the US would suffer from, that their is too much in circulation already for this to be effective.

Honestly man. Do you think there is no root cause to these mass shootings, because I really do think we do a disservice to solving this problem by letting the gun argument suck the oxygen out of the room every time one occurs.
Prove it. Show me a state that tracks firearm purchases. Show me a state that tracks ammo purchases. Back up your claim.
 
That is non-sense. Every specific thing you named has been done on the state level.

You may argue that state restrictions are useless, because they just come across state borders, but the reality is that their is no evidence increased background checks reduce mass shootings or murder rates, and restrictions of magazine capacity suffer from the same failing an outright gun ban in the US would suffer from, that their is too much in circulation already for this to be effective.

Honestly man. Do you think there is no root cause to these mass shootings, because I really do think we do a disservice to solving this problem by letting the gun argument suck the oxygen out of the room every time one occurs.
Also, I'm obviously arguing about a Federal level.
 
Prove it. Show me a state that tracks firearm purchases. Show me a state that tracks ammo purchases. Back up your claim.

States That Require Sellers to Retain Sales Records of All Firearms
Licensed Dealers: Eleven states and the District of Columbia require licensed dealers to maintain records of sales of all firearms. The period of time these states require records to be retained range from three to twenty years except that Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia do not specify the period of retention.

California22
Connecticut23
Illinois24
Maine25
Maryland26
Massachusetts27
Michigan28
New Jersey29
Oregon30
Pennsylvania31
Rhode Island32
District of Columbia33

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/
 
States That Require Sellers to Retain Sales Records of All Firearms
Licensed Dealers: Eleven states and the District of Columbia require licensed dealers to maintain records of sales of all firearms. The period of time these states require records to be retained range from three to twenty years except that Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia do not specify the period of retention.

California22
Connecticut23
Illinois24
Maine25
Maryland26
Massachusetts27
Michigan28
New Jersey29
Oregon30
Pennsylvania31
Rhode Island32
District of Columbia33

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/maintaining-records-of-gun-sales/
That's worthless unless it's Federal.
 
Of course, but the states should be proof of concept.
No. Something like a registry has to be national. A dozen different set of records from a dozen different states and 38 with no records isn't even remotely the same concept as a Federal purchase and ownership registry.
 
Well, if the overall average is going down, but certain cities are going up, that means everywhere else is getting safer. That opens up the other criteria, such as the percentage of black crime in those cities that you're referring too. Since blacks make up 55% of all murders in the US.

That's an average. I don't think I need to tell you that there are plenty of places in America where gun violence is climbing.
 
Back
Top